Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Defends (anti)Abortion (pro-life) Record
National Review ^ | 20 Nov 11 | Katrina Trinko

Posted on 11/20/2011 5:15:41 PM PST by xzins

A day after Michele Bachmann’s campaign attacks Newt Gingrich’s record on abortion, the Gingrich campaign e-mails this account of Gingrich’s record:

Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard. He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. Gingrich’s consistent pro-life standard is reflected by the following:

1. 98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes. (In the one instance that he did not take the NRLC position, it was because the NRLC opposed an early 1995 version of welfare reform because it changed certain welfare payments for mothers with children; NRLC did not oppose the final version of Gingrich’s welfare reform passed in 1996)

2. Supported the Hyde Amendment. Gingrich consistently voted for the Hyde amendment and other bans on government funding of abortions.

3. Partial Birth Abortion Ban. During Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker, the House of Representatives twice passed legislation banning partial birth abortions. President Clinton vetoed this legislation both times. Finally, a partial birth abortion ban was signed into law in 2003. The legislative effort to ban partial birth abortions had a very positive impact increasing pro-life support in the United States.

4. Signed the Susan B. Anthony List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge. In June 2011, Gingrich signed the SBA List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential pledge in which Gingrich pledges to the American people that if elected President he will (i) only nominate judges to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and not legislating from the bench (ii) select pro-life appointees for relevant executive branch positions, (iii) advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, (iv) defund Planned Parenthood; and (v) advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

5. Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.

i. “Mexico City Policy” of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the “Mexico City Policy”— to stop the federal funding of any non-governmental agencies or charities that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

ii. Respect the Beliefs and Integrity of Healthcare Workers. No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any action or procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable. This protection should include, but not be limited to, abortion and sterilization procedures. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; gingrich; life; michelebachmann; newtgingrich; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 next last
To: TitansAFC
It is easy to demand “no compromise” when you are at no personal risk by doing so.

They don't generally try to abort fifty year olds.

Unless they're disabled. Then we're all fair game, if the Constitution's requirement for equal protection is ignored.

Let me ask you a question: Would you give these politicians a pass if they supported legislation that allowed paraplegics to be shot in the heart and killed? Hey, they wouldn't feel a thing, right?! Would you support legislation that allowed Grandma or Grandpa to be done away with if they were given enough morphine? Hey, they wouldn't feel a thing, right?!

Why not? Can you delineate any moral difference between the paraplegic or Grandma or Grandpa and the child in the womb?

51 posted on 11/20/2011 7:30:49 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Because I’m not stupid. And I understand the moral difference between paying taxes and butchering babies.


52 posted on 11/20/2011 7:31:55 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

Your MONTHLY And Quarterly Donations To FR
Help "Light The Fuse" To Speed Up The Pace
Of These FReepathons!!
Less Than $1.3k To Go!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


53 posted on 11/20/2011 7:32:33 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

-—”Would you give these politicians a pass if they supported legislation that allowed paraplegics to be shot in the heart and killed? Hey, they wouldn’t feel a thing, right?! Would you support legislation that allowed Grandma or Grandpa to be done away with if they were given enough morphine? Hey, they wouldn’t feel a thing, right?!”-—

If they try, I will oppose it.

If they succeed, I will gladly support any effort to reverse the abomination, even if that requires a piece-by-piece dismantling of said abomination in lieu of a revolution.

Now, right back at you: Would you let them continue shooting the paraplegics in the heart and euthanizing grandma rather than support an effort that could only save 99% of them, but not all?


54 posted on 11/20/2011 7:37:44 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Well that’s an easy distinction, but I thought you just gave me a giant manifesto talking about the Constitutional crisis of it, and demanding we accept nothing other than the complete equality of treatment guaranteed, even if it means sacrificing millions of unborn in the meanwhile.

And yet, you have no problem cooperating with a tax system that blatantly violates said Constitutional guarantees.


55 posted on 11/20/2011 7:41:20 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Odd you saying that xzins, I was wondering exactly that as I read this. What's she up to?

I really liked her when she first began but I don't like how she runs her campaign. It was fine to mention Perry's issue with immunizations...but then she just went on and on and on about it. Same with her adopting children...she seems to pick a topic and then gets stalled on it.

No-body’s ripping into Romney...he could almost make me literally sick by his sleazy way of cruising thru this primary..saying nothing at all...as if he's got it either all wrapped up or he simply doesn't care if he wins or not.

He's just not in this to win ....but I couldn't say the same thing about his leadership....THEY certainly are.

56 posted on 11/20/2011 7:44:01 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Less Than $1k To Go
Even George Would Be Shocked
To Find Some FReepers
Haven't Donated To FR This Quarter!
Every Dollar Helps!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


57 posted on 11/20/2011 7:44:42 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Not if it involved throwing every principle upon which the republic and our claim to liberty rests onto the fire of the altar of political expediency, no.

Not if it involves “legal” sanctioning of killing innocents, no.

Not if if involves gross abrogation of the sacred oath of office, no.

Especially when I knew that the claims of those who say they are going to save some by doing the above are a stinking lie in the first place.


58 posted on 11/20/2011 7:46:04 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That is a reply to #54, but not a response, EV.


59 posted on 11/20/2011 7:49:00 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Well that’s an easy distinction, but I thought you just gave me a giant manifesto talking about the Constitutional crisis of it, and demanding we accept nothing other than the complete equality of treatment guaranteed, even if it means sacrificing millions of unborn in the meanwhile.

Utter nonsense. I'm not the one sacrificing millions of the unborn. That falls on the shoulders of those who refuse to follow the most important principles of our republic.

And yet, you have no problem cooperating with a tax system that blatantly violates said Constitutional guarantees.

I've been fighting for a tax system that treats everyone equally for about twenty years. Much of that fight against the phony do-nothings in power like Gingrich. How about you?

60 posted on 11/20/2011 7:49:23 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You have been COMPLIANT with a tax system that does NOT treat everyone equal, compromising your beliefs.

Again, why not take the principled stand and not pay? No unborn children would die in order to take this principled stand, so I would figure it would be the EASIER one to take.


61 posted on 11/20/2011 7:53:05 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xzins; wagglebee; wmfights; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses
You already know my reservations with Gingrich, but because he is solid on Life and other social issues I would vote for him over obama any day of the week. I'm still convinced that Perry is a much better candidate because he has a better conservative record and has military experience.

Newt is surging in the polls right now. The question will be when conservatives start voting in the primaries will they support a big govt Pub. He is clearly the best debater, but I think the job requires more.

62 posted on 11/20/2011 7:54:00 PM PST by wmfights (PERRY 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Again, that is a silly straw argument.

We’re talking about the constitutionally-required defense of innocent human life, every one of which is made in God’s image, and therefore beyond price.

And for some weird reason you’re running cover for the politicians who have been pretending for decades that such a requirement to provide equal protection for the life of every innocent person in this country does not exist.


63 posted on 11/20/2011 8:00:22 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Many politicians who claim to be pro-life are saying so because they opposed or voted against partial birth abortion. While it’s good that they did, there are so many other aspects to voting pro-life. Embryonic stem cell research is one issue that many so called pro-life politicians have voted for. There are judicial candidates who are pro abortion who get approved by Republicans in the Senate who say they are pro-life. When someone says they are pro-life, I say “show me”.


64 posted on 11/20/2011 8:02:19 PM PST by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

I thought I had seen every sort of political delusion it was possible to see from Republicans in this election cycle. But you Gingrich supporters are taking the delusion to a whole new level. Newt is the poster boy for the corrupt, unprincipled Republican establishment. And some of us are not going to forget it, no matter how many phony talking points you all come up with.


65 posted on 11/20/2011 8:04:02 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: murron

I don’t believe any of them any more, either.


66 posted on 11/20/2011 8:04:43 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Consistently applying equal treatment under the law is a straw argument?

You can continue to dance around the inconsistencies of your own proclamations of piety and holier-than-thou non-compromising, but I can see that you have two left feet.

Yours is a selective stand, one of convenience and without personal risk, loudly proclaimed but void of consistency. It serve no purpose other than to declare yourself superior and thus use the issue as a bludgeon against reliably Pro-Life individuals.

But you are no more consistent than the tax code when it comes to universally applying your professed “no compromise” principles to even the small universe of yourself. You compromise your principles daily despite your demands that we accept no compromise at all.


67 posted on 11/20/2011 8:12:22 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

-—”I thought I had seen every sort of political delusion it was possible to see from Republicans in this election cycle”-—

You speak of delusion as your home page advertises your undying loyalty to some party called “America’s Party?”

Physician, heal thyself.


68 posted on 11/20/2011 8:15:15 PM PST by TitansAFC (Doug Hoffman says it's good to support Newt, so stop being mad on his behalf when he doesn't want it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Ms. Bachman is seen stalking candidates trying to pick off first one and then the other, because on her own, and on the issues, she can not seem to get any traction, or make any headlines whatsoever, but for those she forces by spearing and smearing the other candidates, slandering their record and reason, and which basically advantages Romney making her look like his shill. These debate sponsors keep including her because...........? Is there still a minimum polling percentage elimination and cut off still in practice? In one primary cycle it was 4% to be included in debates, and she must be polling above that in the states where the debate venue is located.


69 posted on 11/20/2011 8:15:41 PM PST by RitaOK (Rasmussen is the polling standard who owns the accuracy rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
We all need to vote for your party's presidential candidate so Barry can appoint more SCOTUS justices like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Wait...I forgot. It's the Republican's fault they were confirmed in the first place although they didn't have a majority in the Senate.

Anybody But Republicans, eh EternalVacuity?

70 posted on 11/20/2011 8:20:30 PM PST by Chunga (What a load of codswallop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Chunga

You don’t know anything. I don’t have any problem with Republicans who follow the Reagan personhood Fourteenth Amendment plank that’s been in their own platform for the last twenty eight years.

And all the Republican talk about judicial nominations rings hollow, when we’ve watched the killing of innocents go on and on and on, even when large majorities of the Supreme Court are Republican-appointed.

Where are the Republicans who understand that they swore to support the Constitution, not out-of-control judges who couldn’t care less about the Constitution or their own oaths?


71 posted on 11/20/2011 8:33:31 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Physician, heal thyself.

You might want to understand the historical context of that quote a bit better before you think about tossing it around so blithely.

In any case, I'm a free American. I can belong to any party I want to belong to, without your permission or approval. I don't owe the Republican Party anything at all. I devoted two decades of my adulthood to serving it, and got nothing in return except betrayal and abuse.

72 posted on 11/20/2011 8:41:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Marcella

Let’s hope she drops out after finishing sixth in Iowa.


73 posted on 11/20/2011 8:48:59 PM PST by RockinRight (The circular firing squad among conservatives has Romney smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

Less That $115 To Go!!
If You Haven't Donated Yet This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


74 posted on 11/20/2011 8:49:36 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You’re obtuse.


75 posted on 11/20/2011 8:51:01 PM PST by RockinRight (The circular firing squad among conservatives has Romney smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

I simply demand that those we elect fulfill what the founders said was the primary purpose of government. If you think that “obtuse” there isn’t much I can do to help you.


76 posted on 11/20/2011 9:01:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Gingrich has been playing footsie with the pro-aborts, chasing their money, for a couple of decades. His "pro-life record" is a bad joke.

Gingrich has a 98.6% rating by the Right To Life Committee

That's with decades of record.

When a person will deny what's proven true, just because they have another horse in the race, THAT is a bad - and sad - joke.

At least, after lying about Newt, be honest enough to tell your choice, why they can take out obama and how they can hit the ground running in DC in time to stop this deliberate destruction of our country.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

77 posted on 11/20/2011 9:22:50 PM PST by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins
All true, but...did you know she was a tax attorney?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I like her, but she obviously stepped in it. Don't see her getting the ticket, maybe VP.

78 posted on 11/20/2011 9:27:28 PM PST by 4woodenboats (Obama.....a perfect example of why you can't trust someone that won't look you in the eye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

I don’t have a horse in the race, so you’re wrong about that. Every single candidate being offered by the formerly grand old party refuses to face up to their first and most important sworn constitutional duty to provide equal protection for the right to life of all.

And I have not lied about Gingrich in any way.

And in fact I have barely scratched the surface of the steaming pile of compromise of conservative principle that is the career of Newt Gingrich. If his supporters keep getting nasty I might have to find the time to care enough to air some choice parts of it out...especially here in my home state of Iowa. Hmmmm...


79 posted on 11/20/2011 9:38:13 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Recognize that gal Newt's squeezin'??

80 posted on 11/20/2011 9:40:12 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

It doesn’t matter. Arianna’s been buying her way into power for decades. She pretended to be a conservative for years, back before her husband was running for Senate. Ideology has always been the least of her concerns.


81 posted on 11/20/2011 11:58:36 PM PST by Chunga (What a load of codswallop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Have lost all my respect for Bachmann. She went after Perry like a shrill and now after Newt. She needs to do her homework as this makes her looks like a fool or a liar.


82 posted on 11/21/2011 2:47:13 AM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Shes a stooge, but I’m glad she did this because we now know his position. Not only that he’s walked the walked unlike Romney.

Michelle, it’s time to pack it up and gohome. YOu’re way out of your league here. The presidency is for the person who is most capable to lead us. And you’re not it I’m afraid.


83 posted on 11/21/2011 4:25:50 AM PST by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

REally? So, I guess if we can’t get Congress to stop partial birth abortions, because the idiots on the left can’t agree that baby at nine months is a living human being we try stopping the infanticide based on pain. Sure this is a poor excuse, but opposing this is the height of immorality, arrogance and stupidity. This is reality you speak of fantasy.


84 posted on 11/21/2011 4:31:26 AM PST by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Well said, but you’re speaking to a moron....


85 posted on 11/21/2011 4:33:12 AM PST by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I think the bottom line here, let’s be honest, is that you’re not supporting Newt under any circumstance...The man’s record on this issue is clear, very clear. BAchman takes a swipe at him from left field, and it sticks with people like you.

Like I said, there is the reality that abortions are legal in America, in all fifty states, virtually on demand, even in the last trimester...


86 posted on 11/21/2011 4:36:22 AM PST by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

5. Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.

BTW, has your candidate agreed to do this? I think not...


87 posted on 11/21/2011 4:38:33 AM PST by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
giving up the republic’s most important principles, principles that are supposed to protect ALL

This is the part that puzzles me, EV. How is (1)fighting to uphold those principles AND (2) simultaneously fighting to save every life you can in the meantime "giving up..principles"?

It seems to me that NOT fighting to save every life possible IS giving up those principles.

The reality is that the courts have decided those principles are NOT in our law when it comes to the unborn. It is necessary to fight to have that changed.

However, not fighting to save lives is definitely ignoring those principles.

Were station leaders on the underground railroad prior to the Civil War giving up on the principle of "all men are created equal" when they helped an escaped slave on his way to safety in the north or in Canada?

I would say they could fight to (1) abolish slavery per the principle of equality, and (2) help slaves escape to freedom. The second confirmed the first....that they really believed in the principle.

Not to fight now for every single life calls into question whether that person really believes in the principle.

88 posted on 11/21/2011 5:40:08 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the Confederate states while allowing those in the Union states and the territories to remain in bondage,

(1) was he "giving up the republic's most important principles"??

(2) did that action in any way prevent or impeded the adoption of the thirteenth amendment?

89 posted on 11/21/2011 6:09:50 AM PST by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins; EternalVigilance

With respect to the slavery analogy, I think that EV’s position is comparable to that of William Lloyd Garrison, who chose to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk for decades in support of total abolition, but when confronted with the question of whether or not to do anything concrete to help the slaves, chose to continue talking.


90 posted on 11/21/2011 6:16:52 AM PST by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

For the life of me, I don’t see how working at saving lives now AND working to change the current law is a violation of principle.


91 posted on 11/21/2011 6:58:32 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: xzins
For the life of me, I don’t see how working at saving lives now AND working to change the current law is a violation of principle.

The legislation in question doesn't save any lives. It's a lie. And, while not saving any lives, it destroys the cornerstone moral, constitutional and legal principles that argue against child-killing. It defines the child in the womb as a person, and then allows certain disfavored classes of persons to be killed, contrary to the explicit, imperative requirements of the U.S. Constitution, and of all of the state constitutions.

By the way, part of the reason it doesn't save any lives is that the GOP is shot through with judicial supremacists like yourself. Doesn't matter much what you legislate when you've bought into the lie that judges have jurisdiction to make laws, veto laws and amend constitutions by fiat. You're no longer living in a constitutional republic under the rule of law. You've helped create a judicial oligarchy instead.

92 posted on 11/21/2011 7:23:18 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Alan Keys said it best when he pointed out the positions are identical. Slavery and unborn rights are equivalent.

In both the state is incorrectly declaring who is not a human being, sidestepping the principle that all men are created equal. All men deserve life and may not be deprived of it by another. The state may not claim who and who is not a human being, life begins at conception.


93 posted on 11/21/2011 7:24:44 AM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

And yet, all those who worked to defeat slavery in an incremental way were not allies of the slaveholders.


94 posted on 11/21/2011 7:27:27 AM PST by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
judicial supremacists like yourself.

I don't recall signing up on their membership list. :>)

95 posted on 11/21/2011 7:36:04 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

I agree.

Now explain why saving lives now is violating principle.


96 posted on 11/21/2011 7:37:33 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: xzins; EternalVigilance
Xzins:

I have knocked heads with EV on this issue several times before.

He is a party of one here on FR, and apparently derives great personal satisfaction from his position on that snow-white pedestal of self-defined moral purity.

It's pointless to argue with him.

97 posted on 11/21/2011 7:44:20 AM PST by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I just keep trying to get my mind around the logic that says saving lives now is a violation of principle, and I keep coming up with bupkis.

I was sort of hoping, he’d say something clear and profound.

But he didn’t.


98 posted on 11/21/2011 7:49:47 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: xzins

What could be more clear and profound than the words of the founders of this free republic?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”

— The Declaration of Independence

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

— The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

— The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


99 posted on 11/21/2011 7:53:43 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If you think your rights are secure when you, along with our entire political and legal elite, have abandoned the cornerstone American principle of the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable rights of ALL, you are deluded.


100 posted on 11/21/2011 7:55:50 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Nutritionally, you are what you eat. Politically, you are what you endorse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson